Refine
Document Type
- Article (7)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (8)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (8)
Keywords
- team identification (2)
- COVID-19 (1)
- Social Identity Approach (1)
- burnout (1)
- cross-cultural leadership (1)
- cross-cultural study (1)
- emotional exhaustion (1)
- employee health (1)
- exhaustion (1)
- health mindset (1)
Institute
Innovation is considered essential for today's organizations to survive and thrive. Researchers have also stressed the importance of leadership as a driver of followers' innovative work behavior (FIB). Yet, despite a large amount of research, three areas remain understudied: (a) The relative importance of different forms of leadership for FIB; (b) the mechanisms through which leadership impacts FIB; and (c) the degree to which relationships between leadership and FIB are generalizable across cultures. To address these lacunae, we propose an integrated model connecting four types of positive leadership behaviors, two types of identification (as mediating variables), and FIB. We tested our model in a global data set comprising responses of N = 7,225 participants from 23 countries, grouped into nine cultural clusters. Our results indicate that perceived LMX quality was the strongest relative predictor of FIB. Furthermore, the relationships between both perceived LMX quality and identity leadership with FIB were mediated by social identification. The indirect effect of LMX on FIB via social identification was stable across clusters, whereas the indirect effects of the other forms of leadership on FIB via social identification were stronger in countries high versus low on collectivism. Power distance did not influence the relations.
Do leaders who build a sense of shared social identity in their teams thereby protect them from the adverse effects of workplace stress? This is a question that the present paper explores by testing the hypothesis that identity leadership contributes to stronger team identification among employees and, through this, is associated with reduced burnout. We tested this model with unique datasets from the Global Identity Leadership Development (GILD) project with participants from all inhabited continents. We compared two datasets from 2016/2017 (n = 5290; 20 countries) and 2020/2021 (n = 7294; 28 countries) and found very similar levels of identity leadership, team identification and burnout across the five years. An inspection of the 2020/2021 data at the onset of and later in the COVID-19 pandemic showed stable identity leadership levels and slightly higher levels of both burnout and team identification. Supporting our hypotheses, we found almost identical indirect effects (2016/2017, b = −0.132; 2020/2021, b = −0.133) across the five-year span in both datasets. Using a subset of n = 111 German participants surveyed over two waves, we found the indirect effect confirmed over time with identity leadership (at T1) predicting team identification and, in turn, burnout, three months later. Finally, we explored whether there could be a “too-much-of-a-good-thing” effect for identity leadership. Speaking against this, we found a u-shaped quadratic effect whereby ratings of identity leadership at the upper end of the distribution were related to even stronger team identification and a stronger indirect effect on reduced burnout.
Objectives: To investigate whether citizens’ adherence to health-protective non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) during the COVID-19 pandemic is predicted by identity leadership, wherein leaders are perceived to create a sense of shared national identity.
Design: Observational two-wave study. Hypotheses testing was conducted with structural equation modelling.
Setting: Data collection during the COVID-19 pandemic in China, Germany, Israel and the USA in April/May 2020 and four weeks later.
Participants: Adults in China (n=548, 66.6% women), Germany (n=182, 78% women), Israel (n=198, 51.0% women) and the USA (n=108, 58.3% women).
Measures: Identity leadership (assessed by the four-item Identity Leadership Inventory Short-Form) at Time 1, perceived shared national identification (PSNI; assessed with four items) and adherence to health-protective NPIs (assessed with 10 items that describe different health-protective interventions; for example, wearing face masks) at Time 2.
Results: Identity leadership was positively associated with PSNI (95% CI0.11 to 0.30, p<0.001) in all countries. This, in turn, was related to more adherence to health-protective NPIs in all countries (95% CI 0.03 to 0.36, 0.001≤p≤0.017) except Israel (95% CI−0.03 to 0.27, p=0.119). In Germany, the more people saw Chancellor Merkel as engaging in identity leadership, the more they adhered to health-protective NPIs (95% CI 0.04 to 0.18, p=0.002). In the USA, in contrast, the more people perceived President Trump as engaging in identity leadership, the less they adhered to health-protective NPIs (95% CI−0.17 to −0.04, p=0.002).
Conclusions: National leaders can make a difference by promoting a sense of shared identity among their citizens because people are more inclined to follow health-protective NPIs to the extent that they feel part of a united ‘us’. However, the content of identity leadership (perceptions of what it means to be a nation’s citizen) is essential, because this can also encourage people to disregard such recommendations.
The purpose of this study was to investigate which social groups are perceived as a threat target and which are perceived as a threat source during the COVID-19 outbreak. In a German sample (N = 1454) we examined perceptions of social groups ranging from those that are psychologically close and smaller (family, friends, neighbors) to those that are more distal and larger (people living in Germany, humankind). We hypothesized that psychologically closer groups would be perceived as less affected by COVID-19 as well as less threatening than more psychologically distal groups. Based on social identity theorizing, we also hypothesized that stronger identification with humankind would change these patterns. Furthermore, we explored how these threat perceptions relate to adherence to COVID-19 health guidelines. In line with our hypotheses, latent random-slope modelling revealed that psychologically distal and larger groups were perceived as more affected by COVID-19 and as more threatening than psychologically closer and smaller groups. Including identification with humankind as a predictor into the threat target model resulted in a steeper increase in threat target perception patterns, whereas identification with humankind did not predict differences in threat source perceptions. Additionally, an increase in threat source perceptions across social groups was associated with more adherence to health guidelines, whereas an increase in threat target perceptions was not. We fully replicated these findings in a subgroup from the original sample (N = 989) four weeks later. We argue that societal recovery from this and other crises will be supported by an inclusive approach informed by a sense of our common identity as human beings.
The ability to respond appropriately to employees' work-related well-being requires leaders to pay attention to their employees' well-being in the first place. We propose that leaders' stress mindset, that is, the belief that stress is enhancing versus debilitating, may bias their perception of employees' well-being. We further propose that this judgment then influences leaders' intention to engage in or refrain from health-oriented leadership behavior, to express higher performance expectations, or to promote their employees. We expect this process to be stronger if leaders strongly identify with their team, increasing their perceived similarity with their employees. In three experiments (N1 = 198, N2 = 292, N3 = 250), we tested the effect of participants' stress mindset on their intention to show certain leadership behaviors, mediated by their perception of employee well-being (emotional exhaustion, somatic symptoms, work engagement) and moderated by their team identification. Our findings largely support the association between stress mindset and the perception of well-being. The results for the proposed mediation and the moderating function of identification were mixed. Overall, the results emphasize the critical role of leaders' stress mindset and may, thus, improve health promotion in organizations by helping leaders to adequately recognize employees' well-being and respond appropriately.
Although researchers and practitioners increasingly focus on health promotion in organizations, research has been mainly fragmented and fails to integrate different organizational levels in terms of their effects on employee health. Drawing on organizational climate and social identity research, we present a cascading model of organizational health climate and demonstrate how and when leaders' perceptions of organizational health climate are linked to employee well‐being. We tested our model in two multisource studies (NStudy 1 = 65 leaders and 291 employees; NStudy 2 = 401 leader–employee dyads). Results showed that leaders' perceptions of organizational health climate were positively related to their health mindsets (i.e., their health awareness). These in turn were positively associated with their health‐promoting leadership behavior, which ultimately went along with better employee well‐being. Additionally, in Study 1, the relationship between perceived organizational health climate and leaders' health mindsets was moderated by their organizational identification. High leader identification strengthened the relationship between perceived organizational health climate and leaders' health mindsets. These findings have important implications for theory and practice as they show how the dynamics of an organizational health climate can unfold in organizations and how it is related to employee well‐being via the novel concept of health‐promoting leadership.
Although researchers and practitioners increasingly focus on health promotion in organizations, research has been mainly fragmented and fails to integrate different organizational levels in terms of their effects on employee health. Drawing on organizational climate and social identity research, we present a cascading model of organizational health climate and demonstrate how and when leaders' perceptions of organizational health climate are linked to employee well-being. We tested our model in two multisource studies (NStudy 1 = 65 leaders and 291 employees; NStudy 2 = 401 leader–employee dyads). Results showed that leaders' perceptions of organizational health climate were positively related to their health mindsets (i.e., their health awareness). These in turn were positively associated with their health-promoting leadership behavior, which ultimately went along with better employee well-being. Additionally, in Study 1, the relationship between perceived organizational health climate and leaders' health mindsets was moderated by their organizational identification. High leader identification strengthened the relationship between perceived organizational health climate and leaders' health mindsets. These findings have important implications for theory and practice as they show how the dynamics of an organizational health climate can unfold in organizations and how it is related to employee well-being via the novel concept of health-promoting leadership.
Vorausgehende Forschungsarbeiten haben gezeigt, dass die Identifikation von Mitarbeitern mit Ihrer Organisation ein zentraler Prädiktor für wünschenswerte Einstellungen und Verhaltensweisen wie Arbeitszufriedenheit, Leistung und Extrarollenverhalten ist (Riketta, 2005). Folglich entwickelte sich in den vergangenen Jahren ein zunehmendes Forschungsinteresse an den Faktoren, die die organisationale Identifikation von Mitarbeitern beeinflussen (Ashforth et al., 2008). Ein vielversprechender Ansatzpunkt scheint die Rolle des Führungsverhaltens zu sein. Die selbstkonzeptbasierten Theorien der Führung postulieren, dass die Effektivität von Führungskräften im Wesentlichen darauf beruht, dass sie die Identifikation ihrer Mitarbeiter mit der Arbeitsgruppe oder dem Unternehmen stärken (Shamir et al., 1993; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Basierend auf dieser Erkenntnis haben van Dick et al. (2007) ein Transfermodell der organisationalen Identifikation entwickelt. Dieses geht davon aus, dass sich die organisationale Identifikation von Vorgesetzten auf ihr Führungsverhalten auswirkt und die organisationale Identifikation ihrer Mitarbeiter beeinflusst. Nach diesem Modell sollten die Mitarbeiter hochidentifizierter Führungskräfte eine stärkere organisationale Identifikation aufweisen als Mitarbeiter von weniger stark identifizierten Vorgesetzten. Die erhöhte Identifikation der Mitarbeiter sollte wiederum positiv auf ihre Arbeitszufriedenheit, Leistung und Extrarollenverhalten wirken. Eine Serie von querschnittlichen Feldstudien brachte erste empirische Belege für diese Annahmen (van Dick et al., 2007; Wieseke et al., 2009). Vor diesem Hintergrund war es das Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit, das Transfermodell von van Dick und Kollegen (2007) weiteren empirischen Tests zu unterziehen und theoretisch zu erweitern. Hierzu wurden drei Fragestellungen näher untersucht: Zunächst wurden zwei experimentelle Studien durchgeführt, um den angenommenen kausalen Einfluss der Vorgesetzten-Identifikation auf die organisationale Identifikation der Mitarbeiter zu testen (Manuskript 1). Die Ergebnisse der Studien stützen die Hypothese, dass sich die organisationale Identifikation der Führungskräfte auf die Identifikation der Mitarbeiter auswirkt. Darüber hinaus zeigte sich ein Effekt auf die Leistung der Mitarbeiter. Probanden, die für einen hochidentifizierten Vorgesetzten arbeiteten, zeigten eine bessere Leistung als Mitarbeiter einer weniger stark identifizierten Führungskraft. Im zweiten Schritt der vorliegenden Arbeit wurde das Führungsverhalten untersucht, das dem Identitätstransfer zugrunde liegt (Manuskript 2). Basierend auf den selbstkonzeptbasierten Theorien der Führung wurde angenommen, dass es vor allem transformationale Führungsverhaltensweisen sind, die für den Identitätstransfer verantwortlich sind. Zur Überprüfung dieser Hypothese wurden Befragungen von Führungskräften und Mitarbeitern durchgeführt. Eine Befragung fand in Deutschland, die zweite in China statt. Wie erwartet zeigte sich, dass transformationale Führung die Beziehung zwischen Führungskraft-Identifikation und organisationaler Identifikation der Mitarbeiter mediierte. Zudem fand sich in der chinesischen Stichprobe eine dreigliedrige Mediation: Transformationales Führungsverhalten und organisationale Identifikation der Mitarbeiter mediierten in Serie den Zusammenhang zwischen der Führungskräfte- und Mitarbeiter-Identifikation. Das Ziel des dritten Papers war die Erweiterung des Transfermodells um die Kundenperspektive. Es wurde angenommen, dass sich organisationale Identifikation nicht nur von Vorgesetzten auf Mitarbeiter, sondern auch von Mitarbeitern auf ihre Kunden überträgt. Eine Befragung von Führungskräften, Mitarbeitern und Kunden stützte diese Annahme. Neben einem positiven Zusammenhang von Vorgesetzten- und Mitarbeiter-Identifikation, fand sich auch die erwartete positive Korrelation zwischen der organisationalen Identifikation der Mitarbeiter und der ihrer Kunden. Zudem zeigte sich, dass die Kundenorientierung der Mitarbeiter und die organisationale Identifikation der Kunden den Zusammenhang zwischen Mitarbeiter- Identifikation auf der einen Seite und Kundenzufriedenheit und Empfehlungsverhalten der Kunden auf der anderen Seite mediierte. Insgesamt leisten die vorgelegten Arbeiten einen Beitrag zur empirischen Validierung und Weiterentwicklung des Transfermodells der organisationalen Identifikation. Sie überprüfen die Kausalitätsannahme des Transferprozesses, untersuchen den zugrunde liegenden Mechanismus und erweitern das Modell um die Perspektive der Kunden. Die Ergebnisse unterstreichen die Wichtigkeit der organisationalen Identifikation der Vorgesetzten für die Einstellungen und Verhaltensweisen ihrer Mitarbeiter. Zudem legen sie nahe, dass sich die Identifikation der Führungskräfte, vermittelt durch die Mitarbeiter, auch auf die Zufriedenheit und das Verhalten der Kunden auswirkt. Diese Befunde sprechen dafür, dass Führungskräfte als Multiplikatoren der organisationalen Identifikation dienen können. Eine Führungskraft beeinflusst eine Vielzahl an Mitarbeitern, die dann wiederum mit einer größeren Anzahl an Kunden interagieren. Initiativen und Maßnahmen, die die organisationale Identifikation von Führungskräften fördern, können daher ein effizienter Weg sein, um die Leistungsfähigkeit und Kundenzufriedenheit einer Organisation zu fördern.